[QUOTE=mxt_77,Dec 12 2009, 01:33 PM]Who gives a crap about the "original quote."

 

I'd say it depends on the circumstances.

 

[QUOTE=NuncoStr8,Dec 11 2009, 10:03 AM] you're right, that's not racism.

 

^^

More about economics and States vs. Federal rights than just solely slavery.

 

Precisely.

Thus, the statement "ignorance is bliss" is false. Some ignorance might be bliss, but not all ignorance is bliss.

 

Talk to Civil War historians and they'd tell you its foremost disagreement was slavery abolishment, other issues were just additions.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_th...rican_Civil_War

 

Wiki... great choice for a reference.

But, back to the topic: Yes, and no. Certainly slavery ignited the flame, but the Civil War wasn't the North swooping in to end tyranny and slavery, as often people like to think.

Instead, it had more to do with economics and constitutional law. Once the South seceded, they had challenged the power of the Constitution, and the President felt he had to do whatever in his power to repair the situation. That included offering to reunite the country while allowing slavery to continue. The Emancipation Proclamation was, more or less, a threat to the Southern States. It upped the ante. Not because the North was crusading against slavery (though, assuredly they were anti-slavery, to a degree), but it was used to place pressure on the seceded states.

Primary Reference

The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis
* Arthur Bestor
* The American Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Jan., 1964), pp. 327-352
* Published by: American Historical Association

 

^ I agreed that there were other causes besides slavery; but slavery abolishment was a forefront disagreement too. So to say it wasn't really about slavery is not correct at all.

Lots of book references here: http://americancivilwar.com/documents/index.html